Found some data that I thought pretty interesting today, and worth the question: is Barack Obama the next Ronald Reagan? Oh yeah, I know. That one's bound to get steam shooting out some people's ears. But bear with me here. Let's have fun with the charts a moment, then acknowledge some other points.

The chart here shows the official unemployment rates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics. I know people take a lot of issue with this, pointing out that they don't count all the people who have given up and stopped looking for work. So the numbers could be totally skewed at any point in this chart.

Knowing that, it's still interesting that unemployment was declining most of the time under Jimmy Carter until the last few months before the election, then went UP. Of course what this chart doesn't show is the fact that INFLATION was up to around 13% by the time of the election and was the primary point on people's minds.

Once Reagan got into office, it took 3 YEARS to stop the increase in unemployment. In that time, inflation dropped to around 3%. Officially, inflation's been pretty steady since then, with a short dip into NEGATIVE territory in 2009.

Meanwhile, in the last 4 years of George W. Bush, unemployment was mostly declining until the very end when it began to climb just before the election. Much what happened when Carter was in office. Officially, it took just over two years with Obama in office before this began to reverse.

(This is a good example of how skewed the numbers may actually be. By the end of 2007, we already knew a lot of people in the Detroit area losing their jobs, and I think a lot of the country knew what was happening well before the numbers in the chart began to skyrocket.)

Now there's a lot of concern about the increase in MONEY SUPPLY (M0 -- Currency in Circulation) in the last few years, but let me point out another interesting fact.

I can't find exact numbers for the Monetary Base before 1984, but by this chart it looks like it increased from about $60 billion to $120 billion while Carter was in office. An increase of about 100%. (Give or take, without the numbers.) Under Reagan, it increased from around $120 billion to $190 billion (we have numbers for that) in his first 4 years -- or just under 60%.

Now let's see how it has spiked in the last few years:

Again, this is just currency in circulation. A pretty narrow definition, but fun to look at.

While the Monetary Base "only" grew from about $600 billion to $800 billion in George W's first 4 years, and was steady just about till the end of his presidency, its surge began when he was still in office, leaping in a matter of weeks from $850 billion to $1.75 trillion. So the rate of growth in his last 4 years was about 100%, much like Carter's. (Can't blame Obama for that -- although I know, there's always SOMEONE on the other side to blame, no matter who is president.)

In his first 4 years as president (with still a few months left), Obama has seen another trillion dollars added to the Monetary Base, or just under 60%. Almost identical to what happened under Reagan.

Increase in National Debt

But I know what will all make us feel better. I know how to make sure we can't compare Obama to Ronald Reagan. We'll look at the national debt. Ready for the rounded stats?

DEBT UNDER CARTER:Increased about $287 billion, or about 45%.

DEBT IN FIRST 4 YEARS OF REAGAN:Increased about $665 billion, or about 73%

DEBT IN NEXT 4 YEARS OF REAGAN:Increased about $1.03 trillion, or about 66%.

DEBT IN LAST 4 YEARS OF GEORGE W. BUSH:Increased about $2.65 trillion, or about 36%.

DEBT IN FIRST 4 YEARS OF OBAMA:Increased about $6 trillion, or about 60%. (With a few months to go. Maybe he'll catch up with Reagan.)

I know there are so many stats we could look at to make all sorts of interesting points. Chief among them I suppose would be the KIND of spending. Obama, for instance, is no doubt spending most of his money on social programs while Reagan was building a strong national defense. So we can rest assured that the two are very different in their approach. Never mind comments like this seen elsewhere:

"The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $553 billion [Note: for military] is approximately the same level as Ronald Reagan’s FY 1986 budget." [In adjusted dollars.]

[Added comment]: Of course our overall budget is higher, but the point above is that we haven't reduced effective military spending. In fact, the military budget has slightly increased (over Bush spending) under Obama.

[Second added comment]: Bank bailouts? Me, I'm not a big fan. But the last time we bailed out banks with federal dollars (before Obama) ... hmm ... that was under Reagan, who signed the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982, which led to the Savings & Loan crisis.

Sooooo ... is Barack Obama the next Ronald Reagan? Undoubtedly not. I'm sure we can all find ways to assure ourselves on this point. If nothing else ... we're operating on a far vaster scale than we were in the 1980s.

Darn close to finishing a fantasy book aimed at tweens and young teens. Actually wrote this for my two sons, and have to get their green light before anything is showcased. So while I'm hoping this is published in May (yes, 2 months), there's still a vetting process.

If you'd like a first look at it, however, before it goes live ... I'll make excerpts available here on my blog. Whenever I'm allowed. So if you join the blog for free (you'll just receive blog posts by e-mail -- nothing more), you'll be the first to see what's coming. And of course I'll love to have your feedback on what you see.

If you DO like the freebie, also know that it'll be available for 99 cents on Amazon's Kindle as soon as possible. I'll also be looking at iBooks and Nook.

Today I received an e-mail from the Democratic party saying, "This isn't the 1950s, it's 2012. Why we're debating a woman's access to birth control is beyond me."

My response?

We're not debating a woman's access to birth control. No one is saying she can't go to the drug store and buy birth control. We're debating whether the government should force people to pay for other people's lifestyle choices. The government is in effect stealing to enforce its own belief system. I don't see anyone forcing employers to pay for employee nutritional supplements or other holistic health services. Do something GOOD for yourself? That's not covered. Eat garbage all your life and get sick and we'll cover that.

Please don't pretend this is justice. It is stealing.

Now is it possible you end up saving money by slowing the spread of disease and lowering healthcare costs? Yes, you can project anything you like. I can also suggest that if we steal money from every to force supplementation we will lower healthcare costs. Does that justify forcing people into your own view of how to live your life?

What about forcing people to pay for abstinence education? Abstinence is guaranteed more effective than birth control against disease and unwanted pregnancies. I'm not saying we should do this. I'm saying it's another direction the same kind of law could take. Are these the precedents we should be setting? (But of course how many years of anti-freedom precedents do we already have in place?)

Still, if we're going to make this law, I'd like to add a rider to the bill to include contraception for cases of government (and IRS) rape. Maybe we force everyone to put money into a pot as a legal defense fund for anyone whose rights are violated by the government.

Disclaimer: I share a number of products and services on this website. Where affiliate or other referral links are available,I may include them and earn from the referral. Not all links are referral links, and I am never paid to provide a positive review.My goal is to provide useful information on my favorite discoveries to help others make informed life decisions.Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Piracy Policy